Friday, July 25, 2008

From a fellow egroups member in another egroups. So right about hisrecollection of what happened in the early 70s.

Two years and two days (assuming we're using the Theory of Relativity here)- is still a long time and a lot of agony under a corrupt, inept, andrepressive regime. Even a day at the hands of the hangman is an eternity.

So...exactly what is Chiz trying to tell the people - "Konting tiis lang, at 2010 na...pagkatapos...mapapalitan din iyan." Whoa! Our politicians are just repeating history. In 1970, many of our so-called leaders were already positioning themselves for a run in the 1973 elections, they played along with Macoy, fooling themselves into thinking that, come 1973...his term would "expire". And with a Con-Con in the works, they were even more confident that a "Ban Marcos" provision could be inserted into the new constitution. And then...as corrupt and unpopular as his administration was...he was able to pull off an "auto-golpe", a "self-coup" via Proclamation 1081, while the wannabes were caught unawares, with their pants down.

"Tiis"? Iyong politico at elite makakatiis, iyong karamihan ay hindi.

And appended is former Chief Justice Panganiban's take on the same subjectof Arroyo after 2010

PRESIDENT MACAPAGAL-ARROYO'S PRESENT term expires on June 30, 2010. Can shelegally extend her reign beyond that date? My answer: Yes, if our Congress,Supreme Court, Commission on Elections and people will agree to a revisionof our Constitution.

Failed Cha-cha bid

Let me begin my thesis by recalling the most recent bidfor Charter change (Cha-cha). In 2006, during my term as chief justice, theallies of the President, led by then Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr., launched a"people's initiative" to alter our form of government from presidential toparliamentary.

Armed with the alleged signatures of 6.3 million voters, the initiative'svisible proponents—the "Sigaw ng Bayan" and the Union of Local Authoritiesin the Philippines (Ulap)—asked the Supreme Court to compel the Comelec toauthenticate the signatures and to schedule a plebiscite to ratify theirproposal.

However, the Court—by a close 8-7 vote—refused. It described the Sigaw-Ulapinitiative as "a deception" and "a gigantic fraud" because the signatureswere gathered "without first showing to the people the full texts of theproposed amendments." Equally important, a change from the presidential tothe parliamentary system is a "revision, not a mere amendment" that cannotbe authorized by an initiative.

Initiative—as a means of overhauling the Charter—is indeed problematic.Hence, I believe the Palace allies will not repeat the mistake of launchinga new one. Neither will they avail of the more tedious constitutionalconvention (Con-Con). Furthermore, the Cha-cha proponents may not be able toelect enough partisans into the Con-con, due to the low popularity rating ofGMA.

Weapon of choice

I think their new weapon of choice will be the constituentassembly (Con-ass). Under this method, the shift to a parliamentary systemshall be proposed by "Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all itsMembers." Per Article XVII of the Constitution, the proposal "shall be validwhen ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall beheld not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval ofsuch revision."

The big question is whether the two houses of Congress shall vote jointly orseparately. Voting separately, the Senate will—I believe—turn down theparliamentary shift. However, if the voting is done jointly—meaning that thevotes of the senators and the representatives would be added and thereafterthe three-fourths count obtained from the total—then the shift may get theneeded majority.

How? GMA's ruling coalition lists more than 200 of the 240 House members.Hence, in a joint vote, even if all the 24 senators would align with theHouse's puny minority, the required "three-fourths vote of all Members"could still be obtained. Will the Senate agree to convene a Con-ass? Itseems so. Sen. Aquilino Pimentel has already proposed to the Senate totackle his plan for a federal system. Once convened, nothing prevents theCon-ass from dancing the parliamentary Cha-cha.

The Supreme Court will ultimately decide the validity of a joint vote.Considering that the eight justices who rejected the "Sigaw" initiative havebeen decimated by three retirements (four by Feb. 6, 2009 when JusticeAzcuna turns 70) and considering further that GMA has lately been winningcontroversial cases, the high court may affirm a "joint" vote. It may washits hands and say: Let a plebiscite be held to determine whether the peoplewant the parliamentary system.

Ideally, a plebiscite determines the peoples' choice. However, the votingprocess here will be easy to manipulate. Voters will simply choose between"Yes" and "No." In fact, the Marcos Constitution was approved by a mereraising of hands during "citizens' assemblies," a scandalous voting processvalidated by a compliant Supreme Court.

Expect the GMA administration to use its full resources to secure aresounding "Yes" from the Court and from the people. Hence, the Comelec'srole in counting the ballots (and those of Namfrel and PPCRV in guardingthem) will be critical.

Sufficient time for change

Will there be enough time to approve theparliamentary shift? Yes, under this timeline: congressional approval byDec. 31, 2008, Supreme Court decision by June 30, 2009, and plebiscite inSeptember 2009.

The elections scheduled on the second Monday of May 2010 will then be heldfor members of the new Parliament, not for president, vice president, orsenators. GMA will secure a parliamentary seat in Pampanga and then becomeprime minister in a Lakas-Kampi-dominated Parliament after her term aspresident expires on June 30, 2010.

Theoretically, it is possible to revise the Constitution and enable GMA tocontinue her reign after June 30, 2010. But will our Congress, SupremeCourt, Comelec and people allow her? Realistically, can GMA—unlike FerdinandMarcos—extend her reign without martial law?